It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Top Republican congressman calls for Mueller to resign as special counsel

page: 6
23
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 1 2017 @ 12:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Gandalf77
a reply to: GuidedKill

The assertion that Mueller should recuse himself due to a conflict of interest is just plain bologna.
The argument that Mueller and Comey are somehow BFF's has been widely discredited. They were professional colleagues, that's it. They weren't eating dinner at each other's houses; they weren't attending ball games, etc.


Wasn't Mueller Comey's mentor for years?

In the end it really doesn't matter, nothing has been found so far with vast resources invested, so it is not like there is some hidden smoking gun just waiting to be found. All this special counsel is a waste of time and money to prove what we already know, but hey that is Washington.


To be fair, we don't know what has or hasn't been found. Mueller needs to be allowed to complete his investigation--and I'll be the first to accept the results, whatever they may be.
It is not a waste of time and money until Mueller comes out and reports that there's nothing there, and we don't already know anything. The argument that "if there was a smoking gun, it would already have leaked" is not an argument at all--certainly not of the logical variety.
The FBI is certainly capable of keeping evidence under wraps; they do it all the time. Leaking evidence has a way of tainting a case--law enforcement 101.




posted on Aug, 1 2017 @ 12:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Simon_Boudreaux

Considering the nepotism and pay to play tactics that surround this administration I'd argue the previous levels of corruption are preferable.



posted on Aug, 1 2017 @ 12:22 PM
link   
a reply to: AboveBoard

Bingo!

Also the funny part is for all we know the actual investigation is about Obama...

The fbi is keeping it's real cards very close if it's a political exposure. Folks need to understand these leaks are not the actual scope of the investigation but fragments that could even be used as distraction from another area they need secrecy to investigate in.

We don't know until the report is issued the scope of all involved.



posted on Aug, 1 2017 @ 12:23 PM
link   
I don't see any reason for him to step down.

He is in charge of the investigation and will complete it to it's end, and will then hand over his findings to the DoJ.

They will be the one's that decide the value of the evidence Mueller has collected and whether or not any actions should take place.

Trying to push Mueller out will only prolong the process and drag this out much further than it needs to.



posted on Aug, 1 2017 @ 12:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Gandalf77

Accept in two cases


Disinformation

Or slow Disclosure to lesson the public hysteria.

But I agree exactly with your points.

Just want some trump folks to understand Maybe he isn't in as big of trouble as thought and it's part of keeping the focus of the investigation secret. Leaks can and have been used as disinformation legally in counter Intel.
edit on 1-8-2017 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2017 @ 12:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
I don't see any reason for him to step down.

He is in charge of the investigation and will complete it to it's end, and will then hand over his findings to the DoJ.

They will be the one's that decide the value of the evidence Mueller has collected and whether or not any actions should take place.

Trying to push Mueller out will only prolong the process and drag this out much further than it needs to.


I believe Congressmen have already alluded to the fact that pushing out Mueller would be the end of Trump's presidency unless he can prove Mueller did something wrong.

This "conflict of interest" thing is clearly an attempt to come up with that something. And it ain't working.

If Trump gets rid of Mueller on these grounds, he's toast.



posted on Aug, 1 2017 @ 12:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Dudemo5

I read an article earlier that pretty clearly laid it all out:

The power to fire a special counsel resides with the AG. The AG has recused himself. The Deputy AG can't fire a special counsel, even if the AG has recused himself.

To get rid of Mueller, they'd have to fire Sessions and replace him with somebody else who won't recuse themselves. The Senate has already said they will absolutely not hold confirmation hearings for another AG, should Sessions be fired.

So...how can they get rid of Mueller?

Try to force him to recuse himself by making it seem like he's ass-buddies with a guy that nobody else has ever said he was ass-buddies with.



posted on Aug, 1 2017 @ 12:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6


Try to force him to recuse himself by making it seem like he's ass-buddies with a guy that nobody else has ever said he was ass-buddies with.


I hope there's no tape to prove the ass-buddies part.



posted on Aug, 1 2017 @ 12:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: introvert
I don't see any reason for him to step down.

He is in charge of the investigation and will complete it to it's end, and will then hand over his findings to the DoJ.

They will be the one's that decide the value of the evidence Mueller has collected and whether or not any actions should take place.

Trying to push Mueller out will only prolong the process and drag this out much further than it needs to.


I believe Congressmen have already alluded to the fact that pushing out Mueller would be the end of Trump's presidency unless he can prove Mueller did something wrong.

This "conflict of interest" thing is clearly an attempt to come up with that something. And it ain't working.

If Trump gets rid of Mueller on these grounds, he's toast.


Honestly, the worst thing Trump could do at this point would be to remove Mueller. As we found out, Trump was not personally under investigation until he stupidly fired Comey. Now Trump is under investigation for that. If he were to remove Mueller, he would just drag himself deeper in to this mess.



posted on Aug, 1 2017 @ 12:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: Shamrock6


Try to force him to recuse himself by making it seem like he's ass-buddies with a guy that nobody else has ever said he was ass-buddies with.


I hope there's no tape to prove the ass-buddies part.


Don't we all.



posted on Aug, 1 2017 @ 12:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Dudemo5

I read an article earlier that pretty clearly laid it all out:

The power to fire a special counsel resides with the AG. The AG has recused himself. The Deputy AG can't fire a special counsel, even if the AG has recused himself.

To get rid of Mueller, they'd have to fire Sessions and replace him with somebody else who won't recuse themselves. The Senate has already said they will absolutely not hold confirmation hearings for another AG, should Sessions be fired.

So...how can they get rid of Mueller?

Try to force him to recuse himself by making it seem like he's ass-buddies with a guy that nobody else has ever said he was ass-buddies with.


I was under the impression Trump could remove Mueller.

Perhaps I was wrong. Thanks for the info.



posted on Aug, 1 2017 @ 12:34 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Now Trump is under investigation for that. If he were to remove Mueller, he would just drag himself deeper in to this mess.

Yep, it would be comical I guess but only if it brought the two parties together to start passing less biased legislation, rather than both put up a new version of Donald Trump 2020.
edit on 1-8-2017 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2017 @ 12:36 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert


Trump could order Mueller's dismissal. But he would not be able to fire him directly unless he ordered the repeal of the special-counsel regulations adopted in 1999, according to Neal Katyal, the former acting solicitor general, who helped draft the regulations.


Business Insider

ETA - This article differs from the one I read earlier, in that it says that the Deputy AG can fire a Special Counsel if the AG has recused himself, but that it would have to be a "for cause" firing, and not a simple allegation.
edit on 1-8-2017 by Shamrock6 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2017 @ 12:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheTory
a reply to: Krazysh0t




You're right. It doesn't matter. That's why they don't worry about these frivolous "conflicts of interest" like the OP is going on about.


It wasn't frivolous when Sessions recused himself. He did the ethical thing.

Yes, because in Sessions' case it was necessary due to having been caught in a lie about Russia.



posted on Aug, 1 2017 @ 12:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: GuidedKill

And what particulars of this case make it a conflict of interest?


They were each others mentor and worked "closely together" per their own admission. Sang praises about each other publically. How is all this all of a sudden not a conflict??? This is the whole bases of the part of the definition.



posted on Aug, 1 2017 @ 12:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Simon_Boudreaux

originally posted by: bknapple32
You guys are scared....


So what do you call it when someone like me who didn't support or vote for Trump, sees what our so called elected officials are doing to get him out so they can all go back to the status quo and corruption they're used to? What I've seen so far since he was elected and even before, are the DEMS and REPUBLICANS showing their true colors. Showing that an outsider doesn't stand a chance at getting anything done about all the corruption and the double standard between us and them. I believe Trump truly wants to drain the swamp and the effort by both sides to prevent that should scare all of us.


Great point... I don't know how anyone can't see what's happening here. This is scary to allow this kind of conflicts in investigations of this magnitude..I mean wouldn't Dems wants this as conflict free as possible?? Doesn't make sense.



posted on Aug, 1 2017 @ 12:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

LMAO I for Bacon!! Everyone loves Bacon. A point most of us can agree on I'm sure.



posted on Aug, 1 2017 @ 12:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: GuidedKill

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: GuidedKill

And what particulars of this case make it a conflict of interest?


They were each others mentor and worked "closely together" per their own admission. Sang praises about each other publically. How is all this all of a sudden not a conflict??? This is the whole bases of the part of the definition.


Because that isn't what conflict of interest means.



posted on Aug, 1 2017 @ 12:54 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Funny how some people conveniently ignore the fact
that Rod Rosenstein wrote a letter filled with reasons
why Comey really failed in his job, and needed to be replaced.

So Rosenstein is credible, or not?


edit on 1-8-2017 by burntheships because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2017 @ 12:55 PM
link   
a reply to: GuidedKill


I have never heard of top republican Trent Franks. Perhaps his notoriety is only in his head.


edit on 1-8-2017 by icanteven because: verb tense



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join